|
The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this
Wednesday, January 21, in the case of
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The
Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., to
determine whether disparate impact will be allowed under the
Fair Housing Act. If the Supreme Court decides to do away
with disparate impact, it will severely restrict provisions
under the Fair Housing Act.
“Disparate impact stops unfair and unnecessary
discrimination and must be preserved,” said Diana Patton,
VP/COO/General Counsel, Toledo Fair Housing Center. “It has
been used for over 45 years to protect women, families with
children, people with disabilities, and others such as Eric
and Vonda Williams.”
The Toledo Fair Housing Center was first to assist Vonda Williams,
a woman who was on maternity leave when she and her husband,
Eric were unable to use her income to apply for a home
mortgage loan.
Vonda Williams Stated, "When you have been discriminated
against, you may not be able to prove it, but I felt I
needed to talk with someone to confirm my feelings, that
this was not right"
Erica and Vonda, along with the Toledo Fair Housing Center, were
successful in proving that the mortgage loan policy had a
disparate impact upon pregnant women applying for a home
mortgage loan. Without the ability to use disparate impact,
the Williams family, and pregnant women across the United
States would experience discrimination when applying for a
home mortgage loan.
Ever since The Toledo Fair Housing Center opened its doors in 1975,
it has used disparate impact to remedy discrimination for
thousands of Toledo residents and has changed company
policies that have had a discriminatory impact upon
individuals across the United States. The Toledo Fair
Housing Center was one of the first agencies to use
homeowners insurance testing during its investigation to
prove that insurance companies were discriminating against
homeowners with its homeowner’s insurance policies.
“We were able to demonstrate that certain facially neutral
homeowners insurance practices, such as restricting the
quality or amount of insurance a homeowner could purchase
due solely to the age or value of the insured dwelling, had
a disparate impact on homeowners of color,” according to
Stephen M. Dane, the lead attorney representing the Center
in several complaints against the nation’s largest insurers.
“These practices had no sound business justification, and
were based on unfounded assumptions that the industry could
not substantiate.”
As a result of settlements with the Center and other fair
housing organizations around the country, such business
practices have largely disappeared, and millions of
homeowners of color now have equal access to quality
homeowners insurance.
For 45 years, The Fair Housing Act has recognized two categories of
discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, disparate
treatment and disparate impact. Disparate treatment refers
to overt discrimination where intent is plain and obvious.
Disparate impact refers to policies that have a
discriminatory effect where intent is not immediately
evident.
|
